STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
VIRGIL L. MORGAN, as )
Superintendent of Schools ) of Broward County, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 88-4697
)
KAREN SIEBELTS, )
)
Respondent. )
) BETTY CASTOR, as Commissioner ) of Education, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 89-0189
)
KAREN SIEBELTS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in these consolidated cases on April 26-27, 1989, in Pompano Beach, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Morgan: Charles Whitelock, Esquire
1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
For Castor: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire
1201 U.S. Highway One Suite 315
North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
For Siebelts: Robert F. McKee, Esquire
Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her?
If so, what discipline should she receive?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Karen Siebelts is a certified teacher who has held a continuing contract of employment with the School Board of Broward County since January 7, 1980. On August 22, 1988, Virgil L. Morgan, the Superintendent of Schools of Broward county, issued a petition recommending that Siebelts' employment with the School Board as an instructor be terminated. The petition for dismissal alleged that such action was warranted because Siebelts had committed the following acts while employed by the School Board at Charles Drew Elementary School: (1) kicking a student in the leg without provocation or justification on January 22, 1985; (2) threatening her students on February 19, 1985, for having reported the kicking incident; (3) reporting to work in an inebriated condition on January 28, 1986; (4) engaging in inappropriate name-calling with her students on November 4, 1987, which disrupted nearby classes; (5) involving herself in a heated argument with a student on November 5, 1987, which culminated in Siebelts "physically toss[ing the student] into his seat;" (6) verbally abusing other students in the class on that date; (7) making derogatory remarks on November 25, 1987, about the girth of students in her class; (8) kicking student in the head on March 1, 1988, without provocation or justification; and (9) telephoning the student's mother late at night following this incident and issuing threats and making disparaging remarks about the student during the conversation.
According to the petition these were acts of immorality, misconduct, and gross insubordination/willful neglect of duties. By letter dated September 7, 1988, Siebelts requested a formal hearing on the allegations contained in the petition. On September 23, 1988, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the assignment of a hearing Officer. It was docketed as DOAH Case No. 88-4697.
On December 19, 1988, Betty Castor, the Commissioner of Education, issued an administrative complaint alleging that Siebelts had engaged in conduct for which she should be disciplined by the Education Practices Commission. The offensive acts specified in the complaint were the January 22, 1985, January 28, 1986, and March 1 1988, incidents which were referenced in the aforementioned petition recommending the termination of her employment. Pursuant to Siebelts' request, this matter was also referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer. It was docketed as DOAH Case No. 89-0189. On February 2, 1989, Siebelts moved to consolidate Case Nos. 88-
4697 and 89-0189. The motion was granted by order issued February 16, 1989.
Testifying at the hearing in these consolidated cases were Siebelts, some of her former students and colleagues at Charles Drew Elementary School, the school's principal, the principal's supervisor, a school Board internal affairs investigator, and the School Board's Associate Superintendent for Human Resources. In all, there were nineteen witnesses who testified. In addition to the testimony of these witnesses, the parties offered into evidence a total of eleven exhibits. Ten of the exhibits were introduced by the Superintendent of Schools. The remaining exhibit was proffered by Siebelts. All eleven exhibits were received into evidence.
At the close of the evidentiary portion of the hearing, the Commissioner of Education moved to amend the administrative complaint filed against Siebelts to include all of the factual allegations contained in Superintendent of Schools' petition for dismissal. There being no opposition to the motion, it was granted. The Superintendent of Schools then sought to amend his petition for dismissal to encompass events about which there was evidence adduced at hearing, but which were outside the scope of the petition's allegations. Siebelts objected on due process grounds to the proposed expansion of the charges against her. In view of Siebelts' well-founded objection, the Superintendent of Schools' motion to amend the petition was denied. Cf. Department of Natural Resources v. Sheffield, 420 So.2d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)("no abuse of discretion on the part of the [Career Service] Commission in limiting the evidence to the allegations of which the employee had been provided notice. To have held otherwise could have resulted in a violation of due process as the employee could properly have come to the hearing prepared only to rebut the specific allegations in the notice. If the Department intended to base the dismissal on a continuing pattern of misconduct, it could have so alleged in the notices of intent to dismiss.")
The parties were advised on the record that they had to file their proposed recommended orders or post-hearing briefs within 15 days of the date that the hearing transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The transcript was filed on May 26, 1989. The Commissioner of Education filed her proposed recommended order on June 7, 1989. On June 12, 1989, Siebelts filed a post-hearing brief. The Superintendent of Schools, on June 15, 1989, requested an extension of time until June 19, 1989, to file his proposed recommended order. The request was unopposed and therefore granted. On June 19, 1989, the Superintendent of Schools flied his proposed recommended order. The proposed findings of fact set forth in the parties' post-hearing pleadings have been carefully considered and are addressed in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact:
Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology.
For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable.
In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance.
On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students
in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries.
The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student.
Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk.
When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued.
Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks.
Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion.
A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her.
Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears.
Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug.
During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black.
In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part.
Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons.
On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow."
On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food."
On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat.
As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee
did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts.
Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom.
At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher.
On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat.
Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences.
Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Superintendent of Schools is seeking to dismiss Siebelts pursuant to Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
ny member of the instructional staff,
... who is under continuing contract may be suspended or dismissed at any
time during the school year; however, the charges against him must be based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The petition seeking Siebelts' dismissal charges her with "immorality," "gross insubordination"/"willful neglect of duty," and "misconduct in office" in violation of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes. Definitions of these statutory terms are found in the rules of the State Board of Education. "Immorality," as used in Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6-4.0O9(2) as
conduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community.
"Gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty," as used in Section 231.36(1), Florida Statutes, is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 4.009(4) as
a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority.
"Misconduct in office," as used in Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3) as
a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual's efectiveness in the school system.
It is alleged in the instant petition for dismissal that Siebelts violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, specifically subsections (3)(a)-(c), (3)(e)-(i), (4)(a) and (b), and (5)(a), (d) and (m) of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006. These subsections read as follows:
Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety.
Shall not unreasonably restrain a student from independent action in pursuit of learning.
Shall not unreasonably deny a student access to diverse points of view.
* * *
Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
Shall not intentionally violate or deny a student's legal rights.
Shall not on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, marital status, handicapping condition if otherwise qualified, or social and family background exclude a student from participation in a program; deny a student benefits; or grant a student advantages.
Shall not exploit a professional relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.
Shall keep in confidence personally identifiable information obtained in the course of professional service, unless disclosure serves professional purposes or is required by law.
Obligation to the public requires that the individual:
Shall take reasonable precautions to distinguish between personal views
and those of any educational institution or organization with which the individual is affiliated.
Shall not intentionally distort or misrepresent facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression.
* * *
Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:
Shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.
* * *
(d) Shall not intentionally make false or malicious statements about a colleague.
* * *
(i) Shall seek no reprisal against any individual who has reported a violation of Florida School Code or State Board of Education Rules as defined in Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes.
The Commissioner of Education is seeking the revocation of Siebelts' teaching certificate pursuant to Section 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, which provide as follows:
(1) The Education Practices Commission shall have the authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person as defined in s. 228.041(9) or (10) for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying that person the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (4); to
revoke the teaching certificate of any person, thereby denying that person the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person; or to impose any other penalty provided by law, provided it can be shown that such person:
* * *
(f) Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the school board;
* * * Has otherwise violated the
provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate.
The above-cited provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006 are among those rule provisions promulgated by the State Board of Education which provide for certificate revocation as a penalty for their violation.
The instant petition for dismissal and administrative complaint, as amended, allege that Siebelts engaged in conduct on January 19, 1985 (kicking a student), February 19, 1985 (threatening students), January 28, 1986 (reporting to work inebriated), November 4, 1987 (name-calling), November 5, 1987 (tussling with a student and verbally abusing other students), November 25, 1987 (insulting students), March 1, 1988 (kicking a student), and sometime after March 1, 1988 (making a threatening late-night telephone call to a parent) for which she should be disciplined. Some, but not all, of these allegations have merit.
By kicking a student on the shin on January 22, 1985, and kicking another student on the head on March 1, 1988, while the student was crawling under a table at which she was seated, Siebelts did not engage in conduct punishable pursuant to either Section 231.28(1) or Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, inasmuch as the preponderance of the evidence establishes that on both occasions the contact between Siebelts and the student was minor and accidental.
The threats Siebelts made to her students on February 19, 1985, appear to have merely been a warning to them that they and their parents should treat her fairly and with respect. While there may have been a better way of communicating to the students the treatment she expected to receive, her comments on this date did not constitute an offense for which she may be disciplined under either Section 231.28(1) or Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes.
It has not been established by a preponderance of the evidence that, in grabbing a student's arm and tussling with him before placing him in his seat on November 5, 1987, Siebelts was doing anything more than using reasonable physical force to maintain control and order in her classroom. See Williams v. Cotton, 346 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)(requirement of Section 232.27, Florida Statues, that a teacher "`keep good order' in his classroom necessarily implies the power to the teacher to use reasonable force (not amounting to corporal punishment) to do so"). Accordingly, Siebelts may not be punished pursuant to either Section 231.28(1) or Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, for her involvement in this incident.
Although Siebelts admitted during her testimony at hearing that she had telephoned the mother of the student involved in the March 1, 1988, kicking incident and had argued with the mother during the course of their telephone conversation, there is no competent substantial evidence to support the allegation that the call was placed at an unreasonably late hour or that Siebelts made disparaging and threatening remarks to the mother. Absent such evidence, disciplinary action should not be taken against her pursuant to either Section 231.28(1) or 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, for her conduct in connection with this telephone call.
The record evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Siebelts reported to work on January 28, 1986, incapable of performing her instructional duties because she was under the influence of prescribed pain medication. Appearing before her students in such a condition reduced her effectiveness as a teacher. Such conduct constitutes grounds for discipline under Section 231.28(1) and Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes. Disciplinary action may be taken by the School Board against Siebelts for this transgression notwithstanding that she has already received a letter of reprimand from her former principal in connection with this incident. This is because the evidence is insufficient to establish that, at the time the reprimand was given, no further disciplinary action was contemplated. See Department of Corrections v. Duncan, 382 So.2d 135 (Fla 1st DCA 1980)(although an employee may not be punished twice for the same offense, this prohibition does not prevent an employer from dismissing an employee who has been suspended pending a final determination regarding the merits of the charges against the employee). Moreover, even if the reprimand was intended to represent the School Board's final disciplinary response to Siebelts' inappropriate behavior on January 28, 1986, the Education Practices Commission would not be estopped from taking action against Siebelts' teaching certificate as a result of her conduct on that date. See Walley v. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 501 So.2d 671, 672 (Fla 1st DCA 1987). In determining the extent of the discipline that the School Board and the Education Practices Commission should impose for this conduct, it should be taken into consideration that this was an isolated incident which took place more than two and half years before the instant charges were filed and that following this incident Siebelts voluntarily participated in the School Board's Employee Assistance Program and underwent counselling to help prevent a repeat occurrence.
The record evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987, Siebelts made unnecessary and inappropriate remarks to her students disparaging them and their parents, which adversely affected her effectiveness as a teacher. In so doing, Siebelts acted in a manner deserving of punishment pursuant to Section 231.28(1) and 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes.
For having engaged in the conduct referenced in paragraphs 12 and 13 of these Conclusions of Law, Siebelts' teaching certificate should be suspended by the Education Practices Commission for two years pursuant to Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and she should be suspended by the School Board of Broward County pursuant to Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, until her teaching certificate is reinstated.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate.
DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989.
STUART M. LERNER
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189
The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties:
Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact
Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order.
Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as outside the scope of the charges.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges.
Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as outside the scope of the charges.
Rejected as outside the scope of the charges.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as unnecessary.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial.
Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact
First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of
testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact
Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned.
First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues.
Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been
rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes.
Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited.
Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance.
Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987.
Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year.
First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint.
First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the
evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat.
Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges.
Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges.
Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges.
Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges.
Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges.
Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother.
First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony.
To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents).
COPIES FURNISHED:
Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive
Post Office Box 4369
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338
Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board
1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources
Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315
1201 U.S. Highway One
North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581
Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire
Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
VIRGIL L. MORGAN, )
as Superintendent of Schools of ) Broward County, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 88-4697
)
KAREN SIEBELTS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDED ORDER
On June 29, 1989, the Hearing Officer issued a Recommended Order in the instant case recommending that "the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending [Respondent] Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate." By order received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 22, 1990, the School Board remanded the matter to the Hearing Officer to respond to the following inquiry:
What was the intention of the Hearing Officer as to the Respondent's, KAREN SIEBELTS' status i.e. continuing contract or annual contract after her two year suspension of employment from THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY?
In response to the foregoing question, the Hearing Officer hereby advises the School Board that it was his intention to recommend that, following the expiration of her suspension, Respondent be permitted to enjoy the same contract status she held prior to her suspension, to wit: continuing contract status.
DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of March 1990.
STUART M. LERNER
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March 1990.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
Edward J. Marko, Esquire Marko & Stephany
Suite 201 Victoria Park Centre 1401 East Broward Boulevard Post Office Box 4369
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338
Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board
1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources
Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
Robert F. McKee, Esquire Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 29, 1989 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 21, 1990 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 29, 1989 | Recommended Order | Discipline warranted where teacher reported to work under the influence, even though she had previously been reprimanded for incident; other charges fail. |
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs EUGENE JONES, 88-004697 (1988)
JOHN L. WINN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs JUDY KARPIS, 88-004697 (1988)
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs MARIA ALONSO, 88-004697 (1988)
JOHN L. WINN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs JUDY C. KARPIS, 88-004697 (1988)
RICHARD CORCORAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs PATRICIA JOMOLCA, 88-004697 (1988)
